Jury Awards $2 Million to Golfer's Family

Posted on July 31, 2009 by Kristine Meredith

This week a San Diego jury found a golf course responsible for the death of a golfer who was killed after falling off an 80 foot cliff in a golf cart and awarded his family $2 million.  The golfer Edwin Payne tried to make a U-turn on the golf path but drove over a small inner curb, lost control of the cart on a slope veiled by trees, and eventually was catapulted over the cliff.  As discussed here, the property owner must  keep its property in a safe condition and warn of any unsafe conditions.The jury determined that the Pala Mesa golf course should have installed a higher curb and failed to warn him about the cliff behind the trees.  The award will be reduced by 30% because the jury assigned partial fault to Mr. Payne based upon the principle of comparative fault previously discussed here.

Tags: , , , ,

Assignment of Fault

Posted on July 28, 2009 by Kristine Meredith

California is a "comparative fault" state. This means that if a victim is partially at fault for the accident, the jury will be asked to determine the percentage of the blame that lies with the defendant, and the percentage that lies with the victim. The victim will be entitled to collect only that percentage of the verdict for which the defendant is responsible.  For example, if a jury determines that the victim was 30% at fault for causing the accident, and the defendant was 70% responsible, the victim can collect only 70% of the jury's verdict.

Some states do not allow a victim who is more than 50% liable for causing the accident to receive any compensation at all. That's not the rule in California.  California law allows the victim to collect the appropriate percentage of the jury's verdict, even if the jury determines she was more than 50% responsible.  

Tags: , ,